@Mike Richards[demanded that children in grade schools be taught
that homosexuality is a normal way for people to express their sexual urges i.e.
the childrens' book "Heather has Two Mommies"]Now I have
never read that book but I'm pretty certain there are no sex scenes in it.
I am perfectly happy for groups like the Christian Legal Society to receive
support from Vanderbilt. It helps Vanderbilt. The reason that it helps is that
it contributes to a diverse environment. In fact, if Vanderbilt is going to
limit they should remove any statements on their website about being a 'diverse,
inclusive' institution and atmosphere. The statement is vague but it would be
false advertising.If there is an LGBT organization at Vanderbilt
whose director refers to 'homophobia', that would be contributing to a bullying
atmosphere on campus. Hardly an atmosphere of inclusion and tolerance to the
contribution of various viewpoints and cultures.
@ Heretic,So, you're claiming that the homosexual relationship is
based entirely on "love" and on "respect" and on
"caring" for the partner.To that, I simply say,
"rubbish".That's the same argument that a teenage boy uses
when he wants to have sex with his girlfriend. He says how much he loves her,
how much he respects her, how he would never do anything to hurt her or make her
ashamed - as he trying to debase her.That's the same argument made
by every unfaithful man or woman who strays from the sanctity of marriage and
lies about love, respect, honor.Words have meaning. Telling someone
you love them even as you tell them to denounce their belief in God and in His
commandment to marry someone of the opposite sex, to cleave to that person and
to no one else under any condition at any time, even as you tell them that what
really matters is your "love". That's nonsense fabricated from whole
cloth.Yes, try visualizing love. God created us so that we could be
happy and warned us that happiness could ONLY be found by keeping ALL
commandments - including NOT lying with "mankind".
What is really sad is when someone like mike believes that Sex is the central
theme of a relationship and visualizes it whenever he see same sex couples. I
don't think I've seen the word sodomy used so many times in one comment in the
Deseret News.I tend to believe that Love is what makes a
relationship Not a physical act that defines it.Try visualizing Love
mike.Christoph, are you suggesting we allow clergy to decide our
laws? Cause I think that is what this argument is about.The republicans
are fighting hard to tear our Society apart because they know that Society is a
democratic secret word for socialism.
'His point was that a person has the right to associate with people of their
choice and shouldnt be forced to accept a person into a leadership position
because we are all EQUAL...' - Freedom under Attack | 1:56 p.m. Nov. 3, 2011 *Survey shows some LGBT residents dont feel safe By Rosemary Winters
SL Tribune 07/12/10 'A gay man arrested for kidnapping after being
severely beaten by his neighbors.' So where is the equal... treatment? 'The camel has almost taken over the tent.' - Mike
Richards | 3:48 p.m. Nov. 3, 2011 Your 'camel' are Americans. Why the comparison to animals? 'Our actions affect others.'
- christoph | 4:08 p.m. Nov. 3, 2011 So, where is the EVIDENCE that
LGBT affect... others? *'After 5 Years of Legal Gay
Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate.' - Bruce Wilson
- AlterNet - 08/24/09 ''Massachusetts retains the national title as
the lowest divorce rate state...' Made-up liberal nonsense? Not so much. This data was collected from the 'National Center
for Vital Statistics.' Good day.
People have a right to smoke and we pay the health care bill for them-----
rights can be deadly. If someone gets sick and goes to the hospital with no
insurance---we pay the health care bill for them. If the family falls
apart....you get where I'm going---society pays the bill. Our actions affect
others. Two million in prison in our country and how many homeless...society
pays the bill.
@ Ranch,You and I do not agree on the most basic definition of
words. When most people were offended when less than three percent of Americans
wanted sodomy to be acceptable, those who practiced sodomy decided to change the
meaning of the word "marriage" to include unions where sodomy was
practiced.When most people where alarmed that those who practiced
sodomy wanted to adopt children and raise them in an environment where sodomy
was not only accepted, but practiced, gay activists demanded that children in
grade schools be taught that homosexuality is a normal way for people to express
their sexual urges, i.e. the childrens' book "Heather has Two Mommies"
- targeted at the most innocent members of society. When most people
were offended by naked men and naked women marching in "gay parades",
gay activists made sure that their actions were protected and that extra
penalties were applied to anyone who objected to their "in your face"
obscene conduct.When most people know that "rights" and
the choice to live a gay lifestyle have nothing in common, gay activists are now
trying to redefine the word, "rights".The camel has almost
taken over the tent.
@Mike Richards:End Game: Equal treatment under the law. Pretty easy
to understand.@CuRSoc:GLBT clubs accepting public funds
do NOT exclude anybody.Christian clubs accepting funds DO exclude certain
people.Hence the problem.What was it you didn't
understand about Spring's comment?
What is the "end game" for the gay rights activists? At
what point will they be satisfied that Americans have "bowed down"
sufficiently, that Americans have accepted their claim that either God does not
exist or that God's laws have no bearing on personal conduct, that they have the
right to dictate to America who is to be hired, regardless of conduct or
offensive public behavior, that they make the rules for America and that the
role of Americans is to fall into line and accept them as our role models and
our rule makers?Just what is the "end game"?
Furry, LDs Liberal: See Hellooo's comment above.By your logic, an
exclusive church group could not hold a picnic in a public park, because the
park is publicly funded. So you would withhold your dime from that?Excluding religion from the public square was far from the Founding Fathers's
intent. The First Amendment was written more to protect the church from the
state, not the state from the church.
Seems to me there was a big to do, when some students wanted to associate as a
"Gay Club" within a school here in Utah?Enforcing
conformity to religious standards in the secular world is exactly what the
founders fought against.To Counter Intelligence: I am always
fascinated how conservatives campaign under the guise of Freedom of Choice, then
immediately works to eliminate freedom and choice that happen to disagree with
their religious beliefs or their corporate contributers demands.
@Furry1993 | 7:12 a.m. Nov. 3, 2011 Clearfield, UT George Will
apparently doesn't get it. If the organization is a private organization, with
no support from public funds, it can discriminate all it wants for whatever
reason it chooses. But, however, if the organization receives public support, it
has to follow the non-discrimination rules of the provider of that public
support. That shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp. =============
AgreedI wonder if George Wills outrage would support the
public funding for another religous organizations.Let's try a like
experiment, shall we -- the Muslim Brotherhood or [not
to exclude any Christian organizations] the Aryan Brotherhood [aka, The
Church of Jesus Christ-Christian].I support the freedom they have to
say and believe whatever garbage they wish -- but I wouldn't want a dime
of my taxes supporting them.
@Pagan,Your statement, "in a room full of redheads, you can
leave," is hypocritical to your daily contentions.Try this on.
In a room full of heterosexuals, You (assuming you're gay)can leave. So it seems
it alright for you to discriminate against anyone you feel is deserving of such,
as long as it isn't an individual or group you support?Funding is
the issue in the frat deal. No public funding, the right to associate trumps
all. Public or university funding and the fundor trumps all. In either case,
your freedom of association opinion is suspect.
'I can still be civil in my other dealings throughout the day. My choice might
not be rational but freedom allows me to make irrational decisions.' - Mark l |
9:38 a.m. Nov. 3, 2011 And that irrational choice ends with... you. In a room of 'redheads' YOU can leave...
they, another person, is under no obligation to go anywhere because of your
admited irrational bias. Because you only, have control over,
yourself. Not, other people.
There is nothing in this piece about funding. This is only about the right to
associate with people you choose. Private individuals can hang out with whoever
they want. If I don't want to be around people with red hair that is my
business. I can still be civil in my other dealings throughout the day. My
choice might not be rational but freedom allows me to make irrational decisions.
If I commit a crime then the law can prosecute me for that, but allow me my
freedom of thoughts. Let's avoid thought crime.
Diversity needs to be enforced.... because people do not accept
diversity. When people START accepting diveristy, as they claim they
do, there would be no issue. Did the gay student engage in any
illegal activity? Are members who eat meat on friday, have sex outside of
marriage, punished under the same guidelines? I doubt it. As such: Double. Standard. Very simple.
If Mr. Will were bemoaning taxpayer-funded organizations inability to
discriminate against Mormons, would you still agree with him?
The Christian Legal Society or the other "christian" fraternal
organizations were not receiving funds from the Government or Vanderbilt
University. They are is funded by member's dues. The University mirely
provides authorization for it to exist on campus, which authorization it now
witholds unless they conform to a set idealogy of the University. Obviously,
the ones that do not see the contradiction of a institution forcing conformity
in the name of diversity is not the astute Mr. Will, but those whose bigotry in
supporting one or another current popular belief allows them to support the
sacrifice liberty of association.
Is there any good reason to discrminate other than bigotry?Will The
Christian Legal Society discriminate against Mormons because they're not
Christian enough?I don't find any problems at all with a group that
wants to associate with only a certain segment, but as spring street said above,
if they want public funds, they should not be allowed to discrminate by refusing
membership in their group to anyone. Anyone. If they want to
discriminate against certain segments or groups, then let them do it without
public funding, by providing ALL their own funding through private means.
George Will apparently doesn't get it. If the organization is a private
organization, with no support from public funds, it can discriminate all it
wants for whatever reason it chooses. But, however, if the organization
receives public support, it has to follow the non-discrimination rules of the
provider of that public support. That shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp.
Given that all are sinners, christian organizations are under no christian
obligation to single out gays for discrimination. If they want to single out
sinfullness, they can still do this, but the school asks that they not single
out one type over the other. Seems reasonable.
*** "Here, however, is how progressivism limits freedom by abolishing the
public-private distinction" ***The original American model of
liberty recognized a right to property that included the right to hire or fire
for whatever reason one chose, including based on discrimination. Once
government took upon itself the mandate of abolishing racial, ethnic, religious,
and gender discrimination (many more categories to be added later) it guaranteed
that it eventually would stick its nose into every aspect of our commercial and
even private lives; it guaranteed that private property would no longer be truly
private in any meaningful sense.The statutory mandate to abolish
private discrimination now supercedes rights explicitly guaranteed by the
Constitution, including the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and right
to property (as when businesses pay many millions in punitive damages for real
or alleged discrimination).Liberty in any meaningful sense of the
word is dead. Note that one argument made by no less than the Supreme Court of
the United States is that we can't even pass policies to fight illegal
immigration because they MIGHT lead to racial discrimination.
The Christian Legal Society - and any and all other groups - can enforce
whatever rules they want as long as they don't expect funds from those they are
excluding to help pay for their activities.I don't know why that is
such a difficult concept.If you receive public money, the public can
put restrictions on you.